Re: Trade mark application number 1834021 (9, 12) -intel FALCON in the name of Intel Corporation a Delaware Corporation
Case
•
[2020] ATMO 4
•13 January 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Re: Trade mark application number 1834021 (9, 12) -intel FALCON in the name of Intel Corporation a Delaware Corporation [2020] ATMO 4
[2020] ATMO 4
13 January 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application by Intel Corporation, a Delaware corporation, for the registration of the trade mark "INTEL FALCON" (application number 1834021) in classes 9 and 12. The application was opposed by a third party, and the hearing officer was required to determine whether the application should be accepted or rejected.
The primary legal issue before the hearing officer was whether the applicant's proposed trade mark was deceptively similar to existing registered trade marks, as contemplated by section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The hearing officer also considered whether any exceptions to this ground for rejection, specifically those relating to prior use or other circumstances justifying acceptance, were applicable.
The hearing officer found that the applicant's trade mark was deceptively similar to the cited registrations. Crucially, the applicant failed to provide any evidence of use of the "INTEL FALCON" mark prior to the priority date of the application, rendering subsections 44(3)(a) and 44(4) of the Act inapplicable. Furthermore, the hearing officer was not satisfied that any other circumstances existed which would justify accepting the application for registration, nor were sufficient reasons provided to permit acceptance under subsection 44(3)(b).
Consequently, the hearing officer determined that there were grounds for rejecting the trade mark application. Accordingly, trade mark application number 1834021 was rejected.
The primary legal issue before the hearing officer was whether the applicant's proposed trade mark was deceptively similar to existing registered trade marks, as contemplated by section 44 of the *Trade Marks Act 1995* (Cth). The hearing officer also considered whether any exceptions to this ground for rejection, specifically those relating to prior use or other circumstances justifying acceptance, were applicable.
The hearing officer found that the applicant's trade mark was deceptively similar to the cited registrations. Crucially, the applicant failed to provide any evidence of use of the "INTEL FALCON" mark prior to the priority date of the application, rendering subsections 44(3)(a) and 44(4) of the Act inapplicable. Furthermore, the hearing officer was not satisfied that any other circumstances existed which would justify accepting the application for registration, nor were sufficient reasons provided to permit acceptance under subsection 44(3)(b).
Consequently, the hearing officer determined that there were grounds for rejecting the trade mark application. Accordingly, trade mark application number 1834021 was rejected.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Intellectual Property
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Paige LLC v Sage and Paige Collective Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 750
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Paige LLC v Sage and Paige Collective Pty Ltd
[2025] FCA 750
Paige LLC v Sage and Paige Collective Pty Ltd
[2025] FCA 750
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
0
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020
Registrar of Trade Marks v Woolworths
[1999] FCA 1020